White Crane Feather Posted February 9, 2014 #126 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) It doesn't have to be conscious Indeed, but a man with your intelligence should be able to follow it to its end... Or beginning.. Which might actually be the same thing. Actually consciousness is the only end game, which means its also the only beginning. You will figure it out. I have faith in you. Edited February 9, 2014 by White Crane Feather 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted February 9, 2014 #127 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Indeed, but a man with your intelligence should be able to follow it to its end... Or beginning.. Which might actually be the same thing. Actually consciousness is the only end game, which means its also the only beginning. You will figure it out. I have faith in you. Maybe you have more faith in me than I do. The best I can tell consciousness is an emergent property of our neural networks and not a thing unto itself. I have seen no evidence of consciousness absent a functioning brain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted February 9, 2014 #128 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Maybe you have more faith in me than I do. The best I can tell consciousness is an emergent property of our neural networks and not a thing unto itself. I have seen no evidence of consciousness absent a functioning brain Yes you have, you just haven't accepted it yet. The evidence is actually prolific, but lets not have another NDE discussion shall we. Look natural selection dictates that the only things to carry into the future are those things that can guarantee their stability or reproduce themselves. Consciousness is terribly good at this. In fact, its the best we have seen other than DNA, which of course Consciousness is a product of this ( in physicalist philosophy). It's only taken about 4 billion years to evolve consciousness. The universe is much older than that, the multiverse older still on scales that are unimaginable. Of course this is not the only time it has evolved, of course what we see is probably just a the tip of the iceberg. The consistent mistake that humans always make is that we are ridding the tip of the wave when time and time again we are humbled to learn we are ridding the top if it. ( the average) We still have not learned after all this time that earth is not flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted February 9, 2014 #129 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Yes you have, you just haven't accepted it yet. The evidence is actually prolific, but lets not have another NDE discussion shall we. Look natural selection dictates that the only things to carry into the future are those things that can guarantee their stability or reproduce themselves. Consciousness is terribly good at this. In fact, its the best we have seen other than DNA, which of course Consciousness is a product of this ( in physicalist philosophy). It's only taken about 4 billion years to evolve consciousness. The universe is much older than that, the multiverse older still on scales that are unimaginable. Of course this is not the only time it has evolved, of course what we see is probably just a the tip of the iceberg. The consistent mistake that humans always make is that we are ridding the tip of the wave when time and time again we are humbled to learn we are ridding the top if it. ( the average) We still have not learned after all this time that earth is not flat. I think you make assumptions that I am not ready to make. I think the possible age of the multiverse(if it exists) is irrelevant because there is no mechanism for information to flow between universes. And consciousness is not limited to humans. A rat is conscious. Just not as conscious as us. And to say that somehow we evolved some spirit or soul makes no sense to me. Evolution has to do with material things. There is no evidence the spiritual exists other than anecdotal evidence which is unreliable. Suppose the universe is conscious. With the maximum speed which information can be transmitted across the universe would it not follow the universe would require billion of years to complete a single thought? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted February 9, 2014 #130 Share Posted February 9, 2014 If the universe can be said to be conscious, it is a consciousness different from the one we have -- very different -- so the whole idea is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted February 10, 2014 Author #131 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The universe is a source of infinite wonder and it is easy for our minds to contemplate incredible and often fanciful thoughts by simply observing the night sky. It is very human to compare the universe to our own behaviours and characteristics. This is a starting point for understanding. It is also a catalyst for the colourful creation stories which still glitters culture worldwide. Inspiration has come a long way. Our methods of understanding and our stories have evolved considerably. And still the prehistoric campfire within us all instinctively flickers on, sparking a host of questions and a warmth of ideas. We gain a sense of self when viewing the vast cosmic mirror. I have enjoyed all the posts and have learned much. Thanks all. .... The mystery remains .... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleUffod Posted September 29, 2016 #132 Share Posted September 29, 2016 Is that what is meant when people say "distances small than a Planck length have no meaning"? Plus so what happens if a particle is proven to be smaller than the Planck length does all physics as we know it break down?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted September 29, 2016 #133 Share Posted September 29, 2016 51 minutes ago, EagleUffod said: Is that what is meant when people say "distances small than a Planck length have no meaning"? What I understand is it is the smallest meaningful length, not the smallest possible length. At certain scales, we can easily measure the difference between say Point A and Point B, below a planck length, we cannot do that. The distance is too small for us to make sense of it. 51 minutes ago, EagleUffod said: Plus so what happens if a particle is proven to be smaller than the Planck length does all physics as we know it break down?? No, but some equations become nonsense as I understand. In string theory, which comes with tiny extra dimensions, smaller things could exist. How I understand it anyway, if I am wrong, we might both learn something here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted September 29, 2016 #134 Share Posted September 29, 2016 The way I have always thought of it (which is probably wrong) is that the Plank length (and the Plank time) are minimums in the structure of space-time -- the intervals of space and time that form it into a quantized thing. In such a space-time something smaller would be meaningless. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now